Wood et al v. County of Contra Costa et al

Filing 93

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. To the extent defendants seek dismissal of TP's claims, the motions are denied as moot. To the extent defendants seek dismissal o f Wood's claims, the motions are granted, and Wood's claims are dismissed without further leave to amend. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 14, 2020. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 3:19-cv-07597-MMC Document 93 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ANDREA WOOD, and "TP," a minor,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO
DISMISS; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 19-cv-07597-MMC

12
13

Before the Court are the following three motions to dismiss plaintiffs' First

14

Amended Complaint ("FAC"): (1) defendants County of Contra Costa, Office of the

15

Sheriff, David Livingston, Kellie Case, Edyth Williams, Cecilia Gutierrez, and Acacia

16

Chidi's (collectively, "County Defendants") Motion, filed May 18, 2020; (2) defendants

17

Erica Bains and Ravinder Bains's Motion, filed May 18, 2020; and (3) defendants State of

18

California, Kim Johnson, California Health and Human Services, and Mark Ghaly's

19

(collectively, "State Defendants") Motion, filed May 18, 2020. The motions have been

20

fully briefed. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition

21

to the motions, the Court rules as follows.1

22

By order filed concurrently herewith, the Court has dismissed without prejudice the

23

claims asserted by plaintiff TP, a minor, as plaintiffs no longer have counsel appearing on

24

their behalf.2 Accordingly, to the extent the motions seek dismissal of TP's claims, the

25
26

1

27

2

28

By order filed July 16, 2020, the Court took the matters under submission.

After the instant motions were fully briefed, plaintiffs' counsel passed away, and,
thereafter, no attorney has filed an appearance on their behalf.

Case 3:19-cv-07597-MMC Document 93 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 4

1

motions will be denied as moot.
The Court next turns to the motions as they pertain to the claims asserted by

2
3

plaintiff Andrea Wood ("Wood"):
1. The First Cause of Action,3 by which Wood asserts violations of the Fourth

5

Amendment based on the seizure of her children and the search of her home, which

6

events occurred on August 17, 2017, is, (1) to the extent based on the seizure, subject to

7

dismissal for lack of standing (see March 30, 2020 Order ("March 30 Order") at 4:17-24),

8

and (2) to the extent based on the search, barred by the applicable two-year statute of

9

limitations (see March 30 Order at 6:3-10). Although Wood was afforded an opportunity

10

to allege facts to support an exception to the statute of limitations (see March 30 Order at

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

9:24-10:12), she has not alleged in the FAC facts sufficient to support any such

12

exception.

13

2. The Second Cause of Action, by which Wood asserts violations of the Due

14

Process Clause based on the seizure of her children, is, for the same reasons as set

15

forth above as to the First Cause of Action, barred by the statute of limitations. (See

16

March 30 Order at 9:15-25.)

17

3. The Third Cause of Action, by which Wood now asserts violations of the Due

18

Process Clause based on the theory that defendants violated her right to "family unity"

19

(see FAC ¶ 142) by allegedly coercing Wood's son HP into falsely testifying against her in

20

a dependency proceeding, is, for the reasons stated by the County Defendants, barred

21

by the "Rooker-Feldman doctrine," in that the state trial court found HP's testimony was

22

credible and not coerced, which finding was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal.

23

(See State Defs.' Req. for Judicial Notice, filed February 28, 2020, Ex. B at 3, Ex. D at

24

//

25
26
27
28

3

The First through Seventh Causes of Action are titled as they were in the initial
complaint. The Eighth Cause of Action, titled "Declaratory Judgment[;] Facial and AsApplied Challenge to Cal. W & I Code § 300[;] Sixth Amendment – Right to a Jury Trial,
Right to Confront Accusers, Right to Compel Witnesses, Right to an Attorney," is alleged
for the first time in the FAC.
2

Case 3:19-cv-07597-MMC Document 93 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 4

1

3);4 see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 781-82 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming, under

2

"Rooker-Feldman doctrine," dismissal of claim that could "succeed[ ] only to the extent

3

that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it").

4

4. The Fourth Cause of Action, by which Wood asserts defendants conspired to

5

deprive her of the rights on which the First, Second, and Third Causes of Action are

6

based, is subject to dismissal for the reasons stated above with respect to the First,

7

Second, and Third Causes of Action.

8
9

5. The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action, by which Wood seeks a
declaration, respectively, that California Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 300(a), 300(b),
and 300(c) are unconstitutional, are, for the reasons stated by the State Defendants and

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

in the Court's prior order (see March 30 Order at 13:18-14:27), barred under the

12

abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). See Beltran v.

13

California, 871 F.2d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding, under Younger, "abstention is

14

appropriate in favor of a state proceeding if (1) the state proceedings are ongoing; (2) the

15

proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an

16

adequate opportunity to raise federal questions") (internal quotation and citation omitted).

17

6. The Eighth Cause of Action, by which Wood challenges the dependency

18

proceedings as violative of the Sixth Amendment, is, for the reasons stated by the State

19

Defendants, barred by the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger. Moreover, by its

20

terms, the Sixth Amendment applies only in "criminal proceedings." See U.S. Const.

21

amend. VI (providing, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a

22

speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime

23

shall have been committed"); see also Meyers v. Contra Costa County Dep't of Social

24

Services, 812 F.2d 1154, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting dependency proceedings are

25
26
27
28

4

The Court takes judicial notice of the dockets for California Court of Appeal Case
Nos. A155450 and A159048, as well as orders issued by the Court of Appeal. See
Rosales–Martinez v. Palmer, 753 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding courts “may take
judicial notice of judicial proceedings in other courts”).
3

Case 3:19-cv-07597-MMC Document 93 Filed 10/14/20 Page 4 of 4

1

not "criminal proceedings").
CONCLUSION

2
3

For the reasons stated:

4

1. To the extent defendants seek dismissal of TP's claims, the motions are hereby

5
6
7

DENIED as moot.
2. To the extent defendants seek dismissal of Wood's claims, the motions are
hereby GRANTED, and Wood's claims are DISMISSED without further leave to amend.

8

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: October 14, 2020
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4